Muslim Americans Are Among the Least Likely to Support Violence—And Political Violence Can Be Higher in Some U.S. Subgroups, Including White Evangelicals

In the United States, fear often speaks louder than evidence—especially when it comes to Muslims. Public discourse continues to imply that Islamic belief is uniquely linked to violence, an assumption reinforced by selective media coverage and political rhetoric. Yet decades of empirical research tell a very different story. If Americans are serious about religious freedom and social cohesion, we must confront a simple truth: Muslim Americans are among the strongest opponents of violence in the country, and intolerance toward them rests on claims that do not withstand scrutiny. 

Large‑scale research consistently shows that religious devotion—Islamic or otherwise—is not a reliable predictor of support for violence (Ginges et al., 2009). Studies document that political grievances, social polarization, and ideological narratives play a far greater role in shaping violent attitudes than faith itself (Benmelech et al., 2012). When religion is blamed in isolation, we misunderstand the problem and misdirect our responses. 

This confusion stems from a failure to distinguish between religious devotion and the political use of religion. Devotion refers to personal belief and practice; support for violence reflects views about using force—often against civilians—for political ends. Research shows that people who reject violence are just as likely to value religion as those who do not, directly undermining the idea that faith inherently inclines individuals toward aggression. 

Muslim Americans offer one of the clearest examples of why tolerance must be rooted in evidence rather than assumption. According to survey research, Muslim Americans are the least likely religious group in the United States to justify military attacks on civilians, with 78 percent stating such attacks are never justified (Pew Research Center, 2017). This rate of rejection exceeds that of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish respondents in comparable surveys. 

These findings matter. They directly contradict the narrative that Muslim religious devotion is uniquely associated with violence and expose how suspicion toward Muslims persists despite strong evidence to the contrary (Pew Research Center, 2017). A community that is frequently portrayed as a security threat is, in reality, one of the most consistent voices against civilian harm. Intolerance toward Muslims, then, cannot be justified on empirical grounds—it is sustained by misinformation and selective attention, not data. 

Global data reinforce this conclusion. Drawing on research spanning multiple countries, religious devotion does not predict support for violence against civilians across cultures, economies, or political systems (Ginges et al., 2009). Highly religious individuals are neither more nor less likely to justify violence than those who are less religious. If religion itself were the cause, this pattern would appear consistently across societies. It does not. 

Instead, the strongest predictors of support for violence are political context and grievance. Environments marked by polarization, perceived injustice, and distrust in institutions are far more likely to generate violent attitudes than theological commitment. When violence emerges within religiously identified groups, it is typically driven by external political narratives that exploit identity, not by core religious teachings. 

The document also notes that in the United States, support for political violence has appeared within certain subgroups, including White evangelical Protestants and individuals who believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen (Wintemute et al., 2023). Crucially, this does not mean that evangelical Christianity causes violence. It demonstrates how political grievance can intersect with religious identity—just as it can with any identity—without being caused by faith itself. The same analytical fairness must be extended to Muslims. 

Understanding religion as a non‑deterministic factor has profound implications for tolerance. Religious communities are not monolithic. Many traditions, including Islam, emphasize moral restraint, the sanctity of life, and ethical limits on force. It is therefore unsurprising that deeply religious individuals are often among the strongest opponents of violence. Treating Muslim devotion as a risk factor ignores both religious reality and empirical evidence. 

Policies and public narratives that single out Muslims for suspicion do real harm. They alienate communities that overwhelmingly reject violence, misdiagnose the sources of political extremism, and reinforce stereotypes that undermine democratic pluralism. If the goal is to reduce violence, the evidence suggests a far more effective strategy: address polarization, counter misinformation, and confront grievance‑driven movements directly—without scapegoating religion. 

Religious tolerance is not an act of charity; it is an obligation grounded in facts. The assumption that Islamic devotion leads to violence is not supported by the data. Muslim Americans are not a problem to be managed—they are fellow citizens whose attitudes toward violence are, on average, more restrained than those of many other groups. Recognizing this reality is essential not only for justice, but for an honest and effective public discourse

References

1. Benmelech, E., Berrebi, C., & Klor, E. F. (2012). Economic conditions and the quality of suicide terrorism. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 113–128.
2. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2023). Hate crime statistics, 2022. Crime Data Explorer.
3. Ginges, J., Hansen, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2009). Religion and support for suicide attacks. Psychological Science, 20(2), 224–230.
4. Jones, J. M. (2021, January 11). A majority in the U.S. fears increasing political violence. Gallup.
5. Pew Research Center. (2017, July 26). U.S. Muslims concerned about their place in society, but continue to believe in the American dream.
6. Wintemute, G. J., Robinson, S. L., Crawford, A., Tancredi, D. J., Schleimer, J. P., Tomsich, E. A., Reeping, P. M., Shev, A. B., & Pear, V. A. (2023). Views of democracy and society and support for political violence in the USA: Findings from a nationally representative survey. Injury Epidemiology, 10(45).

Dr. Beaux Bonhoeffer

Find me also @beauxbonhoeffer.bsky.social and at beauxbonhoeffer.substack.com